[Susi]

Originally Posted by Canute

Is urban planning a function of the United States federal government? I thought this sort of thing was handle at the state level or by individual corporations.

Due to some federal initiatives it made the environment ripe for suburban housing developments (interstate system, mortgage, etc.). However, at most state levels, developments like Charleston are illegal.

The truth is you can find pretty awful housing in any western country. England has plenty of awful terrace house developements.

The United Kingdom (this is not a phenomenon distinct to just England but also other parts of the UK, in my opinion) does not have "awful terrace house developments" (which are more sustainable than detached suburbian crap anyways..) but the same sort of detached/semidetached development as America (different style of housing but the same sort of idea).

Not to mention some very ugly apartment blocks.

Again, more sustainable than suburban tract housing. Not everyone can afford a detached/semidetached house or even a terraced house, so they must live in apartments.

However, from what I've seen in the UK and what I've seen in the USA (and parts of Canada, however, Canada does not have the same level of suburban development but more so redevelopment of the inner cities (gentrification) and densification)... British planning is fundamentally different than American and Canadian planning.

Most people here do not live in a elegant Georgian townhouse or an ivy covered cottage. I've been to the United States & Canada.

So have I, and I currently live in Canada.

My biggest complaint about housing in the United States is that with the exception of a few areas such as New York and Boston, owning a car and knowing how to drive is a necessity.

Due to poor suburban design and the corruption of the "American Dream". Exactly what I've been describing.

Public transport is nonexistant in most of the United States. Shopping districts are rarely within walking distance of residential areas and if they are, heavy traffic on wild streets can make walking extremely hazardous.

Again, a product of suburban decline and white flight from the inner cities (making transit "unnecessary").

I think housing patterns in Canada are much more superior then in England or the United States. The density is not as great as in England, but is high enough to make public transport feasible and you can walk if you chose to do so in many places.

I would say that England has a denser system of transit than Canada (which isn't very good for transit funding).

However, like in the UK there is more densification and gentrification in the cities. Canada is very spread out place, in some rural areas it is necessary to own a car but suburban areas are not as common in many parts.